Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Nsfw

[edit]

I personally think Criticism from FOX NEWS prompted this template. See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/24/why-is-wikipedia-still-doling-out-porn/ (the creator's edit summary) is sufficient for deletion, but instead I appeal to this being utterly useless. Images appear on the page ABOVE any templates. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it an attempt at censorship? It is an attempt at notification. Censorship would be up to parents and users. Rickyrab (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First this "attempt at notification", then what's next? -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the same tired slippery slope argument that opponents of, say, gay marriage or pot legalization, or something else, use? Rickyrab (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay, but what does this have to do with Wikimedia? Rickyrab (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Wikipedia is another wiki, and it's programmed to at least allow messages over the main article. Doesn't it use similar programming code to Wikimedia Commons? Rickyrab (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But articles and images are a lot different. Also, just because Wikipedia does something doesn't mean we have to. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DeleteThis template may not be safe for humanity. And this comment is not safe for eating. Some files are even not safe for christians and others not safe for my grandma (so tiny that she cannot see anything). COM:PS. I do not see why image pages should be allowed to be cluttered with such templates (we already have {{2257}}). --Saibo (Δ) 20:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:SCOPE User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nsfw

[edit]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This template is effectively a limited technical implementation of the idea of an image filter, which has always been a matter of intense controversy among the Wikimedia movement, even at the level of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees; therefore, I believe that a very wide Wikimedia (Commons) community consensus should be sought before implementing such a tool. Although I understand that the template can only be used through an opt-in gadget, I feel that its mere existence creates an unwanted precedent in what's possibly one of the most contentious subjects of debate inside the Wikimedia movement. What is more, the usage of this template cannot be efficiently monitored without significant community involvement and day-to-day work, and can, in effect, lead to the hiding of perfectly suitable and acceptable pictures, which is something that cannot possibly be wanted by a project with an educational mission like ours. odder (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - As long as it is opt-in, there is no need to worry. In a previous job, I used to do some admin work during my breaks. If I would have had that option, I would have enabled it, because I don't like my colleagues to see me with a low quality picture of someones dick on my screen. Jcb (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It is opt in. There is a consensus for trying the tagging on COM:FPC. This is absolutely not the same as forcing an image filter onto every user and site wide. A deletion request is, with all due respect, not the right tool to contribute to the discussion. --Dschwen (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Providing options should not be seen as censorship. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - I was and am against an image filter in Wikipedia (because the choice of images there should depend on the topic) but at Commons, as here all kind of images do appear, even often unexpectedly, I see the requirement, otherwise you can't do your work from public places. Claiming the usage of this template cannot be efficiently monitored is simply misleading, odder. You know there is AbuseFilter that could be used to prevent adding this template under conditions (e.g. page conditions [page title prefix] or user conditions [edit count, user group, ...]) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Nsfw returns an up-to-date list of pages containing that template. Image tagging as NSFW is also meant to be done in the context of each page where it is used, not a file as such like the image filter as proposed by the WMF was intended to work. -- Rillke(q?) 23:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It hides images only temporarily (until the placeholder is clicked), only from those who have opted-in voluntarily, and has strong community support for use at FPC. (I count 17 !votes in favour, and only 2 against the idea, i.e. 89% support.) The template could be changed to only affect images on FPC pages, so the supposed problems requiring community monitoring wouldn't require its deletion, and there is no evidence of any such problems as yet. The Board of Trustees was unanimously in favour of an image hiding feature in 2011; have they changed their position since then? --Avenue (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
better  Delete then Head in the sand or Head in the sand. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) they have subsequently watered down their position (imo) - wmf:Resolution:Personal image hiding feature. But even still, im of the opinion that people should debate these types of things on their merits (or lack thereof as some people feel) and not really care how the foundation feels. Bawolff (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per the opinions of many at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Opt-in_deferred_display_of_tagged_images. JKadavoor Jee 03:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I do not have a problem with it per se, but I do wonder how "nsfw" can be defined in a culturally neutral way? Is File:Himba Girl.jpg "nsfw" because it contains something that's considered nudity in Western culture, but not in local Himba culture? Is File:Angela Merkel - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011.jpg "nsfw" to (some) Muslims per en:Intimate parts (Islam)? I have the feeling that this will in the end mean "nsfw for the majority of that small part of the world's population that can participate in discussions here". darkweasel94 09:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your examples will fall under "nsfw" (per my POV). But, if people have different POVs and we have plans to respect it, we may thnik about different levels like "moderate" and "restricted" as other sites so that people can choose how much. But I think File:Angela Merkel - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011.jpg is "safe" for any. :)
I heard in many discussions/DRs that I didn't see that video and no plan for it; but prefer to "keep" it. So people have a freedom whether or not to see in case of a video. But there is no such choice now for images now. And I hope this will work for them. JKadavoor Jee 10:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand this discussion, because all people has exact this gadget on his browser (IE, FF, Op, Saf,): don't show me the images ... If any people don't like to see some images then activate simple this option on his own browser. It is more simple. IE 10: has additional the option: "family safety" ... We needn't this gadget for our Commons project! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The web is full with porn and other problematic things, not only commons. It will better to have an own filtersystem, not at commons. And the question: "who decides what should be invisible" for/in/with our gadget? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I've now re-checked what the template does. It isn't meant to be put on description pages so that the image is hidden everywhere it's used (which is what I believed at first). It's limited to exactly the particular place where it is embedded and can be removed from there. That is no worse than, at embedding time, deciding to only put a link to the image, except it leaves the choice to the user. We don't see it as a problem to sometimes only put a link somewhere instead of embedding the image, so we shouldn't see this as a problem either, because this is actually less "censorship" than hiding the image behind a link for everyone. Whether and how it's going to be used is a different question, and if it doesn't find much use, we can still delete it as "unused". darkweasel94 10:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - at first there is no definition what "Nsfw" means. A template, that's not really defined. And then: It seems, everybody can do everything with it. And there's already abuse. The street sign with the name of the austrian village "Fucking" is marked with the template. Unbeleavable! It's a name! Only because in one language the name sounds special, someone put this tamplate in. What if maybe "New York" sounds in an african language like such a word? Collonialism and we do nothing, or will all the users of such censor programs not longer see New York images? Do we do the tag in images with spiders? A lot of people don't like to eat liver - do we put the template in pictures of meals with liver? At the moment it sems, someone is simply living his homophobia out. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? -- Colin (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The template has no effect unless the DeferredDisplay gadget is enabled (opt-in) and this gadget has now been updated to ensure it only works on the FPC listings. Expansion to usage elsewhere may follow from discussion and consensus as appropriate. To make things clear: this template is not used to tag the image (and affect global use anywhere on Commons), but to place a tag only where the images is used -- and currently that can only be on an FPC listing. Colin (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody answer me this question: who need it in true? Not theoretically ... I need't it. For the others: how about this porn-filter. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And who set the {{nsfw}}-Tag for all our porn or other problematic images??? The head shaking --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist, it seems you have a difficulty to understand the purpose of this tool. We need an environment where we can work on a page (probably a discussion) without insulting anybody around us if we are in a particular place like a train, bus, etc. Many people (Saffron Blaze, Tom Morris, to name a few) already explained this. We may already see that picture in a safe environment; and there is no need to see it again and again while we visiting the same page (to review another nomination or so) in a different environment. JKadavoor Jee 15:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jkadavoor, "it seems you have a difficulty to understand the purpose of this tool" yes, all is possible :-)
Current I set my NSFW experimental tag. And now? Who decide which image get the {{nsfw}} tag on the FPC side or other ...? I myself? You? And then, at which time? Always immediately? And why? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can be applied by the nominator if he thinks his nomination may be disgusting to others if opened in a pubic environment (like in tram as explained by Darkweasel94 below). I have no problem if another member in FPC community apply it to my nominations. I can say the FPC community is friendly and matured enough to handle any issues; it is my experience there for the last two years (and you are far more experienced than me there ). Not only sexual contents are disgusting; there are many other topics, like a scene depicting a cruel murder. :) JKadavoor Jee 02:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Safe for work for whom? US-workers? German-workers? EU-workers? Western-world-workers? Iran-workers? Little-children in school? Teens in school? Students? Bureau workers? --DaB. (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the discussion what should be tagged and what not, I think this will form organically. As the system is opt-in, people using the gadget have to discuss that amongst themselves. I believe it is much less controversial than some people want to make it out to be. It is a simple fact that certain (probably most) employers do not permit certain types of materials to be viewed on work computers. This is an externality and we can either accommodate for this, or we will lose contributor time. The judgement of what is NSFW or not is not to be made by us, it is the simple acknowledgement of a societal norm. If a person opts-in to the deferred display of tagged images they will have to acknowledge that quite possibly a few more images are hidden than their particular NSFW standard requires. They will have to weigh the inconvenience of one additional mouse click against the inconvenience of getting fired from their job. And lastly I want to stress that this tagging should be used sparingly and with a dash of common sense. Colin mentioned it above, amongst thousands of candidates this may be applied a handful of times at most.--Dschwen (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • These questions are not helpful. They assume that people here lack common sense, are not operating with good-faith, fail to respect those they disagree with, and lack much intelligence. Perhaps these things are in short supply elsewhere on Commons, but the reviewers at FPC are generally a reasonable bunch. Of the two possibly problematic images I found among the 4500 nominated over the last 2 years, one was clearly NSFW and the other was more subtle (a nude almost-silhouette). Some people might consider this latter one ok and others not. The point is that reasonable people assuming good faith will accept that another reasonable person applying good faith might tag an image that they would not have... and they would respect that. This whole issue is about respect and consideration. The consequences of being a bit too cautious aren't the end of the world. This isn't a global-hide option on the image description page. On the very few occasions this tag may be used, I'd like to see the nominator accompany it with a description of the image so that reviewers have all the facts to help them decide if it is safe to view right now, or if they have to wait for some privacy. Colin (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If this is intended to "defer display" of an image linked to a particular page (i.e. to be a further middle-ground between a bare link and an inclusion of the image), why not call it {{DeferredDisplay}}, and generalize it's use for any images that consensus supports its use for. Calling it NotSafeForWork seems unnecessarily controversial, and clearly (see above discussion) likely to confuse people about its purpose and use. JesseW (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sure, why not. Of course it is totally ridiculous to get riled up over just the name. There has been so much nonsense uttered here that it makes me lose faith in some people. People get foam in their mouth and proclaim the end of the world. Its probably just the Germans being pissed at the evil NSA Americans. It is just so hard to understand why these people insist on patronizing users with a genuine concern here. Just leave them the option. Why the hell would these people care about the definition of NSFW if they are not using the gadget?! It is enough that the people who want the gadget have a pretty good idea what it means!! But no, bullshit arguments are fabricated to support their fundamentalist viewpoint. User:DaB. and User:Marcus Cyron pretend to have an understanding of cultural differences, but ironically what they do is raise their middle finger at us and tell us to F*^% off and and just accept that their view view is the only option. It is a goddamn opt-in gadget. Stop the pathetic FUD already! It has been discussed at the proper venue already. This DelReq is counter productive at best if not mean and confrontational! --Dschwen (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that "respect" for an opinion is not in order if that opinion is unfounded and baseless or if it results in the infringement of other uses' liberties and negatively impacts their ability to contribute. --Dschwen (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dschwen, you are a Bureaucrat on this project, in particular the community expects you to "be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues." Your statement appears to directly accuse odder, and presumably anyone that is genuinely concerned about the implications of implementing a "Not Safe For Work" tool, of being fundamentalists, insane, infringing the liberty of others or paranoid about the NSA and at the same time using "hell", "bullshit", "goddamn" to inflame this discussion. If this was some sort of joke, I am not getting it, your comment here appears to deliberately marginalize those that hold points of view different to yours, and an attempt to forcefully impose your will on this discussion. Would you care to clarify what you really meant or perhaps withdraw your comment as a joke that did not work?
  • Note, having expressed this concern I have no expectation of drawing upon your services as a bureaucrat in the future.
  • My comment for Dschwen here is not an expression of my point of view on this DR, I have expressed none. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template isn't designed as a general purpose jack-in-the-box template for pictures that pop out when you click them. If it got used as such, it would become unhelpful. I think "NSFW" is fine because it doesn't imply prudery on the part of the reviewer choosing to use it, just the societal situation such a person faces. Colin (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know very well that I didn't mean that. Some people want to access certain images and not others, but you're trying to force them to access content that they don't want as the price of accessing the content they do want. Let me also remind you that your "not forced to use the site" drives off reusers who really don't want to access certain content, without helping anyone. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I am not sure on this by now - I can understand the reason that it will not be of any harm if it is used af COM:FPC only as it is decided for this moment, but as far as I can remember especially in FPC normally are no or maybe very low numbers of pics I can imagine that are not safe for public / work / whatever (In the last year there was only one picture of a nude woman as far as I remember and was able to found browsing yesterday - what pics are meant else? Please give me some examples). What my and maybe also the problem of others is is the chance that if this template is installed at FPC it will also do good work at QIC, VIC, .... and will spread in commons and other projects. Once this process starts it will be hard to stop and than it will lead to some kind of censorship since even if I have to use opt-in others will select what I will see in future on the pages I will visit and I am not sure if I would be comfortable with this kind of pre-selection done by others (maybe no insects, no spiders, no slimy stuff in future?). -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That something is enabled on one forum does not inevitably mean it will spread to all of Commons. Indeed, I would say this was impossible due to the nature of Commons. It might be used in future for VI/QI but the editors who nominate and review images there would have to have their own RFC and establish consensus. This is the key thing: don't oppose its use on FPC just because you fear it will be used elsewhere -- we will certainly have a chance to comment on any other uses at that time. This template only works where the image is used, not on the image page itself. So it is the usage that is key -- that FPC is chronological and uncategorised and outside of any reviewer control (unlike search results, say) is really the key factor for its usage there. You are right at historically FPC has had little need for this but a recent image (genitals on display) was a real problem. This template doesn't censor at all as the image appears after a click. There is only consensus for using this for images that give real problems if viewed in a public area such as work. Usage for images that some people just find uncomfortable (like spiders) is simply impossible -- there's no way the community would tolerate that and they need to be asked first. Please let the FPC nominators and reviewers decided for themselves how they want that forum to work, and not let fears of usage elsewhere lead to intolerance of their choice. -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Achim Raschka, this may be an example. JKadavoor Jee 13:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jkadavoor, what I asked for is an example of a picture in FPC - the shown one was never there (or is there any reason to nominate it?). A can imagine lots of pics that should not be opened in public, but I try to find out what kind of pics are meant in FPC where the template should be used. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm; that is by a notable artist. What is the problem in featuring it, if we ever get a high resolution copy? JKadavoor Jee 13:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading because this template is not limited to depictions of fucking. With no guidelines it can be applied to anything that someone might feel is unacceptable to them and whatever their personal moral compass or local national legislation might justify suppression of, from historical political posters (potentially unlawful to view in Germany) through to photographs of same-sex marriage ceremonies (potentially unlawful to view in Russia). --Fæ (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Jakadavoor, that example is extremely unhelpful, it was never a Featured picture candidate, and from its quality and resolution it would never be one. To avoid further random sexually graphic images or cartoons being put forward as misleading examples, I have included below two real relevant examples from FPC. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image that Colin chooses to describe as "genitals on display" is included below. This is a tasteful life study, an art form that invariably entails nudity, by a well known gay photographer and film director. The "disgust" (a word used by others earlier in this discussion) could not have been caused by this being sexually graphic, it plainly is no such thing, if anything it is intended as a romantic portrait showing a non-erotic natural pose for a gay couple. It could well be that for many viewers an extreme reaction has more to do with their perception of this as homoerotic. The reactions of disgust did not occur when displaying and discussing the featured picture of a nude woman, who has her breasts prominently displayed and which appears to be in a deliberately erotic pose, which was not suppressed from view, neither was this ever suggested. The {{Nsfw}} template is now included in User Preferences for all users, despite there being no past use, nor is it in current use, and the fact that it can only apply to COM:FPC as there is no community wide agreement for it to be used elsewhere, a fact that User Preferences does not make clear despite this tool being listed at the top part of the page for all Commons users.

  • A featured pictures lifestudy of a woman, considered "safe for work".
    A featured pictures lifestudy of a woman, considered "safe for work".
  • A gay but non-sexual lifestudy of two men, considered "not safe for work" and was suppressed from view in the related FPC discussion.
    A gay but non-sexual lifestudy of two men, considered "not safe for work" and was suppressed from view in the related FPC discussion.

--Fæ (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. - the picture from Ralf was the one I already knew, it was nominated in September 2012. The two men were nominated in November 2013 (I did not recognize) and it seems they were the source for this template and discussion as the nomination page indicates. So we have two pics in the last more than one year that actually may fit in the nsfw area for some people (as I am actually at work, not for me) - right? Seems not worth this discussion with it's already discussed potential of misuse in other areas to me ... but maybe I miss something? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images weren't that size on the FPC nomination. They measured 5"x5" on my monitor. If you are comfortable with them at work I respect that but hope you respect that others aren't. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the size of pictures. If you need to have a template like this for two pictures at FPC in more than one year I would think that there could be a less dramatically solution for this "problem". -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well frankly, for me, it is about the size of the pictures. I wouldn't have nearly the same issues with a tiny icon that can be scrolled off view quickly. I agree this is a rare issue which is why the huge deletion debate for a template+tool that can currently be only used on FP is utterly ridiculous. The "slippery slope to censorship" argument is a joke. Unfortunately it is not a funny one. Colin (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, there is no emergency for such template, if people are voluntarily willing to use a link or a small thumb for such nominations. The resistance happened there lead to this template, I afraid. And, some people already commented here that such a template is better than mere links. Then why not? JKadavoor Jee 15:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin Maybe the first time you saw this picture on work it was a shocking moment, but how you can prevent this with template? No one can guarantee, that someone else has set the template before, so the risk of seeing unwished pictures remains. And if you have seen the picture for the first time you can also stop it with browser plugins like adblock.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one can guarantee, that someone else has set the template before. No, but 'everyone can guarantee that the image has not been tagged when you derail this proposal, ignore the consensus on COM:FPC and have this template deleted. --Dschwen (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there remains a risk. I saw it on Sunday but wanted to make sure the list was SFW thereafter. Saffron saw it at work and exclaimed WFT! Adblock might work except I can't install it on my PC at work, and have only recently been able to use a browser other than IE :-( Even if I could, it wouldn't help the next few dozen people who look at the list. We are reasonable people at FPC (well, most of us :-) so I'm fairly confident that the nominator would use it or someone else soon enough. BTW, despite what slurs Fae writes about me, I don't find this image disgusting and am no prude and am no suppressor of gay images. I would be happy to review it and similar when suitably private. -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify Colin's statement "I don't find this image disgusting and am no prude and am no suppressor of gay images", he did "hide image" (his edit comment) with this edit, which removed the gay image from view for all readers of the FPC discussion. I have called this "suppressing the image", which seems factually and technically accurate, and completely in line with the dictionary definition of the word, however both Colin and Dschwen have objected to removing images from public view being termed "suppression" and prefer to describe this in other ways, though I have yet to see a different community accepted term for how to describe the act of removing images from view. --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(getting back some lines): I don't care if someone is prude or whatever (even when he calls me a fundamentalist like it is done below), it is the right for everyone and I really understand the thought behind the nsfw case. My questions above concentrated on the real need of this template and even some hours later we are in the situation that we are talkin about a template that would be used one time a year - I think it is not worth this discussion and it is not worth the template if there are other options (linking to the pic instead). I really am feared that the use of this template leads to misuse in the future when it will be adapted for other pages - and if it is misused to be used at pics only some persons don't want to see (just today I added a pic of a rapper to the FPC - and maybe a metalhead may want to hide this?) It's not woth it to discuss in my eyes and at the end I also have to say that it would be better to delete it at this early stage than having problems with misuses later. so  Delete -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did the "linking to the pic" thing and Fae reverted it and called me a suppressor of LGBT images and went all over Commons claiming censorship and spreading muck about me. So, yes, that approach went down well. Let me firmly state that the image presentation was not altered (however you want to put it) because it was LGBT. See what he says above "which removed the gay image from view", not "which removed the image with a dick clearly on display from view". That Fae is using his sexuality as a debating tactic, and presenting himself as some kind of minority martyr is disgusting. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall you and others have repeatedly made bad faith attempts to marginalize my concerns as gay activism, and there have been repeated attempts to make it appear that I called you homophobic when I have done no such thing, along with repeated threats of AN/U to shut me up. Lay off. You suppressed a perfectly legitimate and widely published artwork from open discussion on Commons, without gaining any community consensus in advance. The only place this image has ever been censored in any fashion has been on Commons. As for "disgusting", why is a non-erotic lifestudy where the 'dick' in question is actually a minuscule component of the image, now to considered on Commons as "disgusting", yet strangely there was absolutely no objection or attempt to suppress a deliberately erotic image with prominent breasts dominating the image, that got promoted to Featured Picture? Obviously tasteful nudity per se is not a problem on FPC. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you both didn't get it: I don't have any interest in your fights on homophobia, prudity, dicks or whatever - this doesn't matter for my decision and it bores me to read about long gone fights. Maybe you want to read about my last fight on image filters - than search for the "vulva on frontpage" discussions in the german wikipedia and don't bother me with "nobody wants to built a wall" stuff. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an open Forum, Achim, and if it bores you you can unwatch. I have the right to defend myself against accusations. The whole anti-LGBT / gay-suppression thing is a figment of Fae's imagination, and a strawman. Among the many attacks by Fæ include: "you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me". Read into that what you will. Colin (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colin's selective quote is out of context, indeed he has chosen to truncate the sentence in a way that appears deliberately misleading. To avoid my words being misinterpreted, I am repeating the context from my talk page (which I have since asked Colin to not write on again) which was that Colin's action in removing the image simply had no community consensus, either on FPC or anywhere else: "If you did not want to force a community discussion to reach a consensus on this point, then you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me without discussing it with the community first. Concern created from your threats to leave should not supersede or override having a real consensus." --Fæ (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The full sentence doesn't change my point at all. Colin (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Even though I see the need of filtering some nasty pictures, this template entails the risk of censorship. Because the tag is send with the picture to client (browser), a provider or government could easily prefilter the content, even though it is not activated in user settings.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course the government want to censor the Featured Picture Candidate list. Only pictures of Conservative Party MPs can be featured from now on. :-) Colin (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could imagine that the homophobic russian government would make every effort to stop showing the right photo above (which I would not tag as nsfw, it's harmless act photography). To the intention of restricted use at FPC I can only say: Principiis obsta!--Sinuhe20 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep for operation on the FPC pages per local consensus at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Opt-in_deferred_display_of_tagged_images (and my own view, too). As I understand it, nobody is suggesting any wider use, and if they did it would need much broader discussion. Very happy for this to be implemented in any reasonable way, including a gadget. There are already loads of gadgets of interest only to a small proportion of Commons users, and this template/tool is no different. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete obvious abuse potential. @Dschwen: Danke für das Script etc. aber diese Filterung ist mir nicht geheuer. Nach langen überlegen vd. Es gibt ja auch Browsererweiterungen und vielleicht ist ein Browser-seitiges Plugin sinnvoller. Aber On-Wiki ist mir das nicht gehäuer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope it is noted that the template was used on the image of the topless women. Of course the template does not work outside of FPC so it is on full display. I hardly see the need to put the image on a discussion page about things not being safe for work. Unless of course you are looking to drive people like me away from the discussion? 131.137.245.209 14:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry :( --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandate

[edit]

This is template + tool can only function on the FPC list. There's a clear mandate for its use there by overwhelming consensus from participants there (Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Opt-in deferred display of tagged images). It has no impact on the rest of Commons whatsoever. If anyone wants to use it elsewhere that will require an strong mandate for that forum/area too. Does anyone really expect otherwise, that it might just happen secretly and inevitably? I question whether those who do not participate at FPC have any mandate to dictate how those who do participate at FPC how they should view the candidate list. What gives them any right to dictate how and when I must view any image that someone chooses to nominate? This is my choice, and the choice of many others there. Please respect those who have different circumstances and worldviews from yours. Have we not learned anything about tolerance of others who we don't agree with or understand but who do us personally no harm? Or will the fundamentalists win? -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "dictating" how Colin wishes to view images on his screen, this is a gross exaggeration of the facts. Colin is completely free to install variations of this user script without it becoming a standard gadget across the whole of Commons, and if FPC users wish to create a local 'NSFW' list, they can go ahead without even having to mark images with a template.
This might be more credible if it had not been enabled for all Commons users in User Preferences. If usage were only intended for FPC users, then a link at the top of the FPC page to the javascript source code for FPC viewers to add to their own user scripts would be simple. The controversial action in making this a standard User Preferences gadget, without even an explanation on the page that this only works on FPC appears to be a deliberate first step in "normalizing" this for the whole of Commons and gives a local discussion by FPC users the apparent power to skip having a community wide consensus, particularly as this strategy appears supported by a Bureaucrat. FPC contributors are not in charge of Commons, and changing User Preferences should not be used as part of a lobbying campaign to provide users with an "apparently" Commons authorized image suppression feature.
The arguments here are much along the line "this is a de-facto solution, get used to it", however this was something that Dschwen created last week, has not been properly subject to community-wide agreement, nor has does it come with any track record of testing or practical use. In fact it may well never be used, so turning it into a User Preferences standard gadget is not just completely unnecessary, it is bizarre. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The script doesn't work without the template. The template has no effect without the script. So I can't just write some JavaScript if other people delete the template. Your main problem seems to with the Gadgets wording/impression, which we aren't really debating here. We have QINominator in preferences, which is similarly specific to QI and presumably added by consensus/agreement of those at QI. We could have it called "FP Deferred Display" if it makes you happy. This is blowing up a convenience (don't have to hack JavaScript) and a minor textual issue into an end-of-the-world problem. Colin (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The script can be easily amended to use a shared local community list of 'nsfw' images rather than needing a template solution. This simple improvement would do away with the contention about possible misuse when others use it to mark images on other parts of Commons as {{Nsfw}}. The tool is supposedly in "experimental" use, it is not locked against improvement, so disposing of this template would not actually make any difference to the outcome you are looking for. As for "hacking" JavaScript, nobody is asking you to do that regardless of how the end solution might work. Solutions such as off-wiki tools have not even been discussed or tested, adding an FPC list as a part of external standard blocking tools would also be effective and not require any technical skills from FPC contributors.
The fact that other options have not been discussed properly and that this change to User Preferences has been hastily pushed through without a proper attempt to gain a community-wide consensus just looks like a pre-emptive strategy to implement what the "pron/Commons is broken" lobbyists have been attempting to do for more than two years. If folks here are serious about running this as a proper experiment, then please do it properly rather than fudging it and then abusively shouting down all opposition as "fabricating" "bullshit" arguments and being "foam in their mouth" fundamentalists as our Commons Bureaucrat Dschwen is kindly guiding the community to believe. --Fæ (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment For those interested in seeing where this template is in use or has been used, the answer is none and never. The following table provides a maintained analysis of usage: --Fæ (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are 8 cases of images marked with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC.
Detailed list, red indicates use outside of COM:FPC
Page Image(s) marked
Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2013
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fine-art-nudesunpine.jpg

File:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jamides bochus 2 by kadavoor.jpg

File:Jamides bochus 2 by kadavoor.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2013
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-31.jpg

File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-31.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Artistic-nude-brunette.jpg

File:Artistic-nude-brunette.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2014
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpg

File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpg

Appeal

[edit]

I think this discussion is a waste of time, as it has no relevance to what is going on at COM:FPC; no authority to command what to do and not do there. The COM:FPC community had made many decisions for its well being, by discussing on it’s talk page. The community showed great tolerance to any new comers, gave positive suggestions and encouragements, and many people including me made benefit from it. There are many veterans there, Lviatour, Holleday, Tomascastelazo, George_Chernilevsky, Diliff, Alvesgaspar, JJ_Harrison, Quartl, Archaeodontosaurus, Böhringer and Richard_Bartz to name a few from whom we, the newcomers learn a lot.

I remember how Alvesgaspar, a much senior but mellow member came to help us in many disputes and heated discussions. Here also he came with reminding us a past discussion two years ago. The FPC community listened him, considered both sides, and derived a win-win solution. I think most of us are happy now. But unfortunately it was brought to COM:VP and then here. It is very disappointing to see how the opinion of our most respected contributors is neglected and they are being humiliated in front of all.

So I request a watching admin or a group of admins to act upon appropriately. JKadavoor Jee 17:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained several times above, nobody is stopping FPC from managing its own discussion pages how that sub-community wishes, this template is not actually required to suppress/censor/hide images for its contributors, if that is what FPC wants to do. That the FPC reached its own consensus for managing its discussions is super duper. Nobody is ignoring that consensus, nor is anyone overruling it.
This template is now an issued standard gadget with apparent authorization to be part of Standard User Preferences for all Commons accounts. As such it should have had wide community consensus rather than a consensus limited to only the people who take part in FPC, regardless of how mellow, positive, encouraging or happy they are. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem remains intact, since the beginning. A minority, very active, has an interest in getting bogged down in unnecessary debate. The administrators, we elect, should to examine the problem. They have the legitimacy to do so. That does not mean we should make rule;s here means that we need a group of administrators referring to the issue of pornography. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions: why don't you use a local template like Commons:Featured picture candidates/nsfw (templates don't have to be in template name space) and user defined scripts (for your community only) to hide such tagged pictures instead of activating central user settings?--Sinuhe20 (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sinuhe. I had already answered this question here. But after thinking about it, you do have a valid point here! The template would have been almost as easy to remember as a subpage, because you could include it like {{/nsfw}}. A gadget is still orders of magnitude easier to use than fiddling with user javascript. I would however gladly volunteer to help people set this up in their user script if the gadget approach gets shot down. --Dschwen (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this offer. Could you take the first step in resolving this and remove the unused gadget from User Preferences until a credible community wide consensus for it exists? If you were to amend your script to rely on a local list, there would no longer even be contention over this template. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fae, what do you mean by local list? Right now the gadget needs the tags on the FPC page. This is easiest to implement and most likely the highest performance solution. --Dschwen (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An FPC community edited list of images that are considered "nsfw". This would avoid the need to have a template and guarantee that how it works is consistent, rather than risk poorly placed templates with potentially unpredictable outcomes. This is "experimental" so designing an alternative that does not require a template should be worth trying out. In terms of performance, nothing should be running unless someone who has the JavaScript installed is viewing the appropriate part of FPC, so there is hardly much to worry about in terms of performance, I doubt whichever design is tested would show much difference either way. In terms of "easiest", the ability for users to add to a simple shared list of "nsfw" images is pragmatic and a lot easier than including a special template that is invisible code to the viewer of a page, at least for the casual user who does not have your gadget installed (itself not a good practice). --Fæ (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how adding an entry to a list somewhere else is any easier than adding a simple mnemonic template right where said image is included. And I fail to see how your approach has any advantage in being "more consistent". It sounds like the same thing as the current idea, just more complicated (an additional page load to fetch the list, not being able to use fast native browser selectors to fetch elements) and changed to be a proverbial fig leaf. I doubt this would appease the strongest opponents here. --Dschwen (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not. No edit war over the gadget, please. The FPC community has already decided this is a viable solution for its concerns. When and if there is a better solution of course it may be considered. Hopefully there instead of having the issue dragged all over Wikimedia. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing preparation russavia (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, the suspense is killing me! --Dschwen (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept Whilst Commons is not censored, there is a consensus at the COM:FPC sub-project for a tool which will "hide" so-called NSFW images from view if the person has the tool enabled. The determination on how an image is chosen to be hidden from the FPC list is something that needs discussion at the relevant discussion board, and is not determined at COM:DR. The template isn't going to be used in file space, so the deletion comments of some are somewhat misguided. It might be advisable for those behind the template to make the fact the template is only for use on FPC more pronounced and more prominent on the template itself. Any other issues relating to the use of the template, for example, whether it belongs in the gadgets list, again is not something that a DR will solve; discussion needs to take place at the relevant talk pages. russavia (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Nsfw&oldid=811875592"